jrush

You go and fat-finger "atheist" one time...

Merlyn, the BSA has to define "atheist" somehow.

They can't say "someone who believes God doesn't exist", because that could exclude Buddhists and other accepted non-theist faiths.

If my definition of atheist "one believes that nothing exists" may be "off the wall" according to you, but it really doesn't matter. I have a particular definition that I believe fits with BSA policy and the Scout Law by allowing me to be accepting of non-theist faiths. Your personal definition of "atheist" is up to you.

Whether your personal definition matches up with what the BSA policy implies is central to the discussion; it's why, as Old Ox said, national hasn't just handed this ball to CO's to handle as they see fit. For example, some people consider Buddhists and other non-theists to be atheists, and they could be supported by the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

In short, the BSA didn't say "according to the Merriam Webster dictionary" or "according to the personal definition of the SM/CO/etc/etc". You and I don't get to decide who an atheist is in the BSA, no matter what your dictionary says...only the individual can indentify themselves as such, which brings us back to the young lad the OP told us about. Did the boy claim to be an atheist, or did he make a statement which fits in with someone's personal or dictionary-supplied definition?

No, Vicki, it doesn't.

An atehist holds that nothing exists.

You can have faith without believing that God (proper noun) exists. You can have a faith that doesn't have any sort of "god figure" at all. As has already been said, Buddhism, which rejects the metaphysical, is a PERFECT example. While some people consider Buddists to be atheists because of this, the BSA (as an organization) welcomes Buddhist scouts.

The blanket statement that "one must believe in God in order to not be considered an atheist, and thus, be able to be a scout" directly flies in the face of the BSA's stated policy.

Imagine for a moment if District/Council downchecked a Buddhist scout for Eagle because someone considered Buddhism insufficient to fullfill the Scout Oath. What do you suppose the response from national would be?

Packsaddle, the rule isn't "bad" and it doesn't need stringent application to make it be changed.

You can have a personal belief system which doesn't require belief in the God of your parent's church.

Bottom line, not believing in your parent's God doesn't make you an atheist by default.

Eagle83,

The problem is that 80% of this country is Jewish, Islamic or Christian and another 15% believe in God but don't self-identify as a particular religeon, while about 1% or so claim to be atheists and agnostics. That means when the term "God" is used in conversation, it is automatically assumed that one is talking about the God of the aforementioned monothestic Abrahamic religeons.

First, the BSA uses the term "absolutely nonsectarian". That means that when the BSA uses the term "God", they are not referring to the monothestic Abrahamic God.

Second, the boy didn't say he was atheist...he said God doesn't exist.

IMO, there's nothing for the SM to deal with, other than to continue to provide a quality program for the boys to lead.

If the boy declares that he's an atheist or begins disrespecting the beliefs of the other boys, there is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I think if a SM in this situation wanted to do "something", he or she could talk to the boy about the BSA's intent behind "Duty to God", that he isn't required to believe in the God of his parent's church, and that the BSA is nonsectarian and he is free to explore other faiths without fear.(This message has been edited by jrush)

Packsaddle and Vicki, I think you're missing the point some of us were trying to make:

The scout doesn't have to believe in God (as we colloquially use the term); he just can't declare himself to be an atheist/agnostic. They are two seperate things. If he has a belief system of any kind at all (even if it doesn't include God), he's not an atheist.

IMHO the BSA made a mistake by not coming out and saying that the term "God" does not mean the monothestic judeo/christian/islamic God we all grew up with, but rather it's merely the name for one's personal belief system. Instead, they said "absolutely nonsectarian" and left us to our own devices.

(This message has been edited by jrush)

Well, the shop did give me another cotton shirt for the one that said "Bo Scouts of Amer ca". They didn't have the new shirts in, and sais it was "like item replacement", meaning I would get the new wool shirt *if* the cotton shirt was no longer available.

In any case, I can get buttonholes made off post for a $1.50 each, I sew patches on myself, and the shop that does buttonholes can replace the iron-on letters with embroidered ones pretty reasonably, as well.

Merlyn, here's the simple test:

Can the boy absolutely, positively not believe in the God of Christianity/Islam/Judaeism (i.e., the God of the church he is attending with his parents) and yet not be an atheist?

There is a reason the BSA says "God", not "the God".

There is a difference between not believing in God (as the term is used socially) and being an atheist.

If the SM wants to press it he can find out if the boy just doesn't believe in the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent white-bearded old man living in heaven, or if he doesn't believe anything exists at all.

Packsaddle, your own opinion about what is or is not a myth is 100% irrelevant.

The BSA says "absolutely nonsectarian".

Why some of you people have such a hard time understanding the BSA's policy is beyond me. If you want the BSA to say every boy must be a "member in good standing" of a Christian, Jewish or Islamic group, start politicking national to make that the policy.

Otherwise, "absolutely nonsectarian" means exactly what it sounds like it means, and the boy doesn't have to believe in the Christian God.

I don't know about patch edges, but mine (the poly/cotton) is 9 months old and the iron-on "BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA" letters are all starting to peel off from the bottom up.

Taking it back to the scout shop, maybe they'll replace it with one of the shirts with the lettering embroidered on.

I have been consistently unimpressed with the centennial shirts all the way around. IMO the BSA made a big mistake making a "field uniform" shirt that won't be worn in the field except for religious services and ceremonies.

BS-87, urban dwellers have long wanted to shift more of the burden for maintaining rural roads from themselves to the rural and suburban community. A mileage tax would do that.

However, I doubt there's enough politicial will for tracking devices in cars in the House and Senate.

What you probably will see is increasing federal, state and local taxes on gasoline and deisel, and increasing taxes on vehicles of a certain fuel consumption and curb weight..

Basementdweller, the boy didn't say he was an atheist.

He said he didn't believe in God.

They are 2 different things.

According to the BSA, he can worship his ipod or DS.

Have you still not read the BSA's legal ruling on the matter? I'll post it, again, since you seem to have a hard time grasping it:

"The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training."

The BSA does not say what is and is not a valid religeon, only that the boy be reverent. Just because a particular religeon has a religeous award with the BSA doesn't put them on an "approved list". He can be a wiccan, or worship oak trees or idols or satan. None of those are specifically banned.

Atheism and agnosticism are banned. Anything else is okay as long as the Scout respects the beliefs of others and follows the Oath and Law.

(This message has been edited by jrush)

evmori, the BSA doesn't say anything about "going to church to check the block doesn't count", because the boy doesn't even have to go to church in the first place.

Period.

The boy doesn't have to acknowledge the God of the church/religeon he chooses to attend with his family, for whatever reason he's attending.

Period.

Unless he flat-out declares himself to be an atheist or agnostic, the BSA has no issues with him not believeing in said God, no matter what he does.

Period.

Buddihsm is a moot point, because the BSA doesn't have a list of "approved religeons" the boy must choose be a member of.

Period.

What the BSA says is "The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training."

Absolutely and Nonsectarian.

The boy can quite frankly say anything he wants short of declaring himself to be agnostic or atheist (which are specifically banned) or denigrating others' beliefs. He can honor mother nature by following the Outdoor Code; as long as he also respects the practices and beliefs of others, he fulfills the spirit and intent of the Oath and Law according to the BSA.

evmori, the problem is that in common vernacular, "God" is assumed to mean the monothestic God of Abraham.

The BSA doesn't use that definition. They use "God" as "spritual higher power"; thus, their acceptance of Native American religeons, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

So, the young man actively deny the existence of the Christian God and yet still perform his Duty to God and be Reverent toward God per the BSA's definition.

perdidochas, where do you get that it's been flat?

Nationally, SAT reading scores have seen a gradual increase from 492 in 1980 to 516 last year, and that was after 30 seconds' research. Is that due to federally-funded reading programs? Maybe or maybe not, but the increase is right there in black and white.

Now, you can certainly argue that the billions spent on education don't justify the results, but don't pretend that results don't exist.

BS-87, Paul isn't going to get any support from any Republicans of any sort. He'll get support from Libertarians who have been voting Republican. The Libertarian platform just conflicts too badly with the Republican platform on some key issues.

I agree there's a lot of money being wasted in education, but remember this: It takes the fedgov waving the carrot of dollars in front of States to get some of them to the educational level of 2nd world countries. Lord knows where they'll wind up without any motivation at all.

BadenP, the country isn't electing Bozos to Congress.

Districts and States are electing Bozos to Congress.

It doesn't matter if I think Pelosi or Reid are Bozos...they aren't representing me. It only matters if I think my Representative and Senator is a Bozo. Quite frankly, the people in Pelosi's district probably do think my Representative is a Bozo, but they have no say in who my Rep is, so it evens out in the wash.

Baden P, that's the second problem with Trump.

Who can the President fire? The people serve "at the pleasure of the President", a list which includes ZERO lawmakers. He can fire his own cabinet members, and people who work in executive branch departments, bureaus and agencies. He can fire the director of the CIA or FBI. He can fire the Chiefs of the military service branches. Important to note, he can't just fire one and name the replacement...he can *nominate* a replacement, but those positions (including military) are confirmed by the Senate.

He cannot fire anyone in the House. Nobody in the Senate. He can't fire anyone on the US Supreme Court. He can't even fire the Vice President.

Next, come up with a list of Presidents who were not politicians (in some form or fashion...remember that General Officers are politicians as well) before entering the oval office, and you get a VERY short list. Discuss their outstanding track records. Here's the only two: WH Taft and Herbert Hoover. One was a judge and the other an engineer. Arguably a supreme court judge is a politician, too, so your only true non-politician ever to be elected President was Herbert Hoover.

Packsaddle, I didn't forget Trump, he just isn't worthy of mention as a candidate, for one reason:

Government isn't business.

Donald Trump can gamble on a business enterprise...if it wins, he makes a billion dollars and looks like a genius. If it fails, he can wash his hands of it and walk away. He can even push the bankruptcy reset button and in a few years, he's made another billion dollars and everyone forgets. Bottom line, the real eastate market awards gamblers, and he can afford to gamble.

The federal government isn't a real estate deal you get to walk away from if you gamble wrong. You don't just drag some venture capitalists into bankrupcty court with you.

Sorry, but I don't want a gambler carrying the football onto Air Force One.

Romney: can't win the south. He comes across as a slick northeastern used-car salesman, even before you find out he's mormon.

Daniels: Not much flash and a lot of smart substance, which means he'll win the intellectuals among the GOP and indies. Unfortunately, I don't think he has enough flash (yet) to pull the other 80% of them away from Dancing With The Stars long enough to go vote...so, he would be a good VP choice, or he needs a flashy VP that doesn't turn off indies.

Palin: actively dismissed by indies, and without some indies, you don't win the Presidency. Period. She's the Three Musketeers of the GOP; once you get past the fun chocolate coating, you realize there's nothing left but a bunch of cheap, crappy nougat. The Dem's first choice for an opponent for a reason. The Dems keep her in the spotlight for a reason. She's the 2nd biggest reason we have President Obama.

Huckabee: can't win outside the bible belt. He seems like a geniune individual, but quotes like "the Constitution needs to be realigned with God's standards" have already sunk him as a national politician.

Paul: the libertarian "platform" will sink him nationally. There is something for everyone to say "They can't be serious!", from significantly slashing the military to legalizing drugs and prostitution to disbanding medicare and social security. This is probably a close runner-up to Palin as the Dem's favorite matchup.

Gingrich: (this is coming from a Georgian) Gingrich is the GOP's Jimmy Carter. Very smart individual, stepped on it nationally by going all in on an inside straight. Success depends on the public's memory and attention span, and whether he can avoid looking like another yankee-transplant neocon (i.e., GW Bush).

Pawlenty: I want to like him, but Minnesota also elected Jesse Ventura and Al Franken in statewide elections. Apparently, you have to be a little bit weird to win in Minnesota, and I wonder in what way Pawlenty meets that standard.

TAHAWK, I didn't mean to imply that you were personally advocating for the USN Fighting Knife Mark II...what I meant to imply was that you were getting wrapped up over the treatment of such knives by Troops guided by the encouragement provided by National policy (that infamous "do not encourage" bit).

I agree, there are hundreds of choices of cutting tools a scout could use for tasks requiring a cutting tool. I further don't think that you (or anyone else) "misunderstood" a book written by survival experts with the BSA logo stamped on the front. I said that different people take different meanings away from the supplementals; that while you and others find it hypocritical that troops ban the use of an item the BSA puts their logo on, most leaders don't see anything important.

My bottom line was that for better or worse, the overwhelming majority of SMs and CCs will use the Boy Scout Handbook and the Requirements book, verbatim. Further, barring physical or mental disability requiring alternate requirements, they will use the requirements given in the handbook and requirements book for Eagle, verbatim, no more, no less. So, while I respect and understand your position that fixed blade knives are an unavoidable part of scouting, I also understand that the Boy Scout Handbook disagrees. To earn Eagle a boy must "demonstrate proper care, sharpening, and use of the knife, saw, and ax, and describe when they should be used." It does not specifically mention what kind of knife. The tot-n-chit requirements say "pocket knife", but the rank requirement doesn't say "earn your tot-n-chit". It says something else, simply "knife". All of those other things out there with the fluer-de-lis stamped on them from the fieldbook to survival guides are supplemental resources...no more, no less. Good resources, but not requirements. Hence, my statement that focusing on the absence of fixed blade sheath knives in the troop is just spinning one's wheels. "Supplement" versus "requirement".

I've said before I think the unofficial "in practice" ban on fixed blade sheath knives is silly and ignorant. That being said, I don't think it takes anything away from the program or the individual scout, because they aren't required for any task that a scout is required to do. Yes, they *can* be used for certain tasks. It's even arguable that they *should* be. But the fact is, per the requirements for Eagle, they don't have to be. So, while I think it's silly that I can't wear my BM 145 at camp or allow a young man to use it to earn Second Class, I don't lose any sleep over it.

Beavah, I think you're misunderstanding Powell's statements regarding use of the military. I'm speaking as a field grade officer in the military, repeating what is getting taught by the military to field grade officers as part of their military education. You can say "the military is a blunt tool" all you want, but that's not what the military thinks.

If you want to talk about diplomats, we can bring up state department security contractors making videos of themselves driving down the highway randomly shooting at people. Every organization attracts people who will invariably cause international incidents. We can also talk about how much experince the NG has with humanitarian relief, even compared to NGOs.

All of the dictators in the region are routinely executing terrorists. Al Qaeda, specifically, has "overthrow the House of Saud by violent means" as a stated goal. Specifically the House of Saud, and specifically by violence. So, no, the king of SA isn't funding the people who are actively trying to blow him up. It's a popular urban myth, but it belongs in the bin with President Bush arranging 9/11 and KBR causing Hurricane Katrina.

My "necessary and proper clause" bit is my standard response to any statement that we're over-regulated, over-taxed, over-governmented, etc. We elected delegated who approved a Constitution that said the government can do anything it deems necessary as long as it doesn't conflict with anything else in the document.

In closing, I didn't say we *should* support every dictator just because they control the oil spigot or strategically important real estate, but I recognize that's what we do and why we do it, even though it never works in the long term. Personally, I think we're just trying to keep the lid on the ME until they run out of oil.

I'll agree with you, the younger generations in those nations are the future, no matter what we do.

TAHAWK, your last two paragrapghs illustrates the issue some people are having:

"At the end of the day, the BSA sells fixed-blade knives and suggests their use. Most of the Councils that purport to ban them also sell them in their camp stores. The majority of Troops that purport to ban them use them routinely in cooking. The Scouts will use them routinely at home and in their lives. So, I respectfully submit, BSA should present training information both in the Handbook and the syllabus for IOLS. We are about developing behavior and character for Scouting and for life.

And if BSA elects not to extend its mandate as an educational entity to publishing materials about proper use of fixed-blade knives, I suggest that it should consider not selling them and not advocating use of very large fixed-blade knives in official publications."

Some people read something in a BSA publication talking about bolos or kukris and see that the BSA is "suggesting" or "advocating" their use. SMs and CCs note that while the BSA acknowledges the existence and potential use of such tools, they aren't even *recommended* for any tasks in the Boy Scout Handbook...thus, there's no need for them in the Troop.

Next, the Troop that bans the 7" fighting knife and has no issue with the 7" cook knife or the 7" filet knife isn't some sort of hypocrasy. Given the difference in purposes, I'm not surprised they are treated differently. Further, while the 7" cook or filet knife may get routinely used by the Scout at home, it's a stretch to say the same of a bolo, kukri, fighting knife, etc. Note that chainsaws aren't in the totn-chit, either. Should we be training every scout to use a chainsaw because they might use one at some point in the future? After all, the BSA does mention chainsaws.

TAHAWK, you've turned the BSA's treatment of a 7" fighting knife into a judgement on the BSA's "syllabus" of the training and mentorship of young men. I submit that if it's not required for Eagle, it's the proverbial icing on the cake. Think about it...a young man can go from Scout to Eagle and never once lay a hand on a fixed blade knife of any sort. You don't even have to have one to cook. You can clean and sterilize a folder, and a folder can cut up everything going in the pot. The cook knife is a convenience, nothing more.

If you focus on the "cake" of Scouting, that 7" fighter just isn't part of the cake. It's not even part the icing. It's a little crumb in the bottom of the box that you may or may not even notice. It doesn't have anything to do with lack of trust or responsibility...it has to do with not being important.

Beavah, maybe this angle of looking at the military will make it easier to understand: the job of the military is to do what the people, speaking through the government, tell it to do. If they *want* it to be a hammer to force a foreign government to do what we want them to do, it will be a hammer. If they *want* it to hand out bottled water and MREs to hurricane victims, it will be a relief organization. If they *want* it to assist the DEA and BP with capturing drug mules crossing the border, it will be eyes and ears. Sorry, but it's not *just* a hammer. What Colin Powell and other politicians have said is that when you tell the military to do a certain job, it has to be that tool appropriate for the job.

Next, you are confusing parts of the population of Saudi Arabia with King Saud. Yes, there are wahhabi fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean King Saud is funding them...quite the opposite, they have the stated goal of overthrowing the king by violence, and the king publicly executes every one of them he catches. Further, they don't oppose EVERYTHING we believe...if they did, they would shut off the sigot and return to living in a tent with their goats. They want the prosperity provided by swapping oil for dollars. Note they don't demand gold or euros or yuan...they want US dollars.

As far as what values we export...well, everything we have regulated today is based off of clauses in the Constitution that were put there by the founders...such as the "necessary and proper" clause. Think about that...the founders said the federal government can do or regulate anything that can be considered a "necessary and proper" use of federal authority. As far as democracy and our democratic values? Beavah, we're not even a pure democracy ourselves. We don't trust Joe Blow to act for the "greater good". We allow him to elect a lawmaker to act on his behalf. Not even the founders thought the masses were capable of self-governance.

Our strategic interest in the middle east? Stable (note I did not say "nice") leaders who will export the most oil and the least terrorism. Compare the ME to Poland. In their case, it *did* make a lot of sense to support Democracy. The Poles could be reasonably trusted to form a government friendly the US. They might want even want to join NATO and give us military ally right on Russia's doorstep, which they did.

In a nutshell? Supporting democracy will be based on a cost/benefit analysis, and we've been doing that ever since we refused to get involved in the French Revolution. I know, that smacks of hypocrasy, but even the founders knew nations don't function on idealism.

TAHAWK, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you're saying. The point is, what the BSA actually *says* and what they actually *do* in regards to sheath knives are two different things.

Next, scouts are taught how to care for, sharpen and handle knives. It doesn't matter one whit if that knife is a 2" folder or a combat knife. Passing fixed blade knives? Same thing as for the cook knife in the chuck box. Set it down, let the recipient pick it up. The Boy Scouts, believe it or not, allows for a bit of common sense to be applied to tasks. We (as adults) may have a hard time tolerating that concept, but we can apply it if we choose to.

Even so, my point is, so what if troops ban sheath knives? Again, what is the essential part of scouting being denied? So what if the fieldbook mentions bolos and the catalog sells a fixed blade? The Troop isn't telling a scout what they can or cannot buy, simply what they can and cannot bring to a troop function...which is entirely the Troop's prerogative. The Fieldbook is a supplement, not a requirement; the "essentials" of scouting are all in the Handbook. If a scout or scouter feels like they're being treated like a baby, they are free to leave the Troop and find one that allows everyone to bring their favorite bowie to camp.

At the end of the day, the BSA doesn't encourage the use of fixed blade knives and allows Troops and Councils to handle the matter in the way they see fit...as a result, because they don't add anything relevant to the scouting experience, they are in large part banned. If a bowie was even remotely useful around camp, the Handbook would have a section on how the bowie was the most useful scoutcraft tool on the planet and Troops would encourage every Scout to have one.

So, if we're going to focus on BSA policy, what's wrong with the BSA saying large sheath knives are of poor utility for most camp chores and then Troops telling boys and adults to leave them at home? Again, what is the essential part of scouting being denied?(This message has been edited by jrush)